Re: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Fernando,

> Hi, Joel,
> 
> On 13/2/21 21:11, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> [....]
> > 
> > At the same time, I grant that there are a number of other aspects of 
> > how we do business that create barriers in other ways.?? I have seen 
> > suggestion from various people that I think deserve evaluation. However, 
> > I am unable to construct a proposed charter that would provide any 
> > coherence and bounds to such efforts.? And process improvements (which 
> > is the general category of the proposals I have seen) are hard enough 
> > even when tightly scoped.? Chartering a new process WG without a clear 
> > goal is a recipe for wasting a lot of people's time without achieving 
> > any of the goals.
> > What I am wondering is if any of the folks who are concerned abut issues 
> > outside of language selection can draft a charter.  
> 
> I can give that a try, if that's of use.

I would indeed like to see a broader charter than TERM as it
is expressed today.  I am of the position that language is
such a tiny part of the larger problem that addressing only
the language would actually be paying disrespect to the real
problem, and those organizations that have done just that
and moved on are no better for having done so, and those
that have not are no worse off for having not done so.

> [...]
> > I don't think it is really fair to the proponents of this proposal to 
> > object on the grounds that we should do some unspecified different thing.
> 
> FWIW, my objection was related to create a wg for the sole reason of 
> discussing language, rather than with the progress of said document.

Could you please write a larger scope WG chater?  Someone?
I would like to see that.

> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]